•  
  •  
 

St. Thomas Law Review

First Page

359

Document Type

Article

Abstract

With the United States ratification in 1992 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, issues of international rights protection have assumed a new importance. U.S. lawyers asserting rights for a client must know not only the state and federal constitutions, but also the standards that have developed by treaty and by international custom. The latter body of law applies in international fora to which a case may be taken, and may be relevant in U.S. courts. Human rights law is of recent origin and is only slowly making its way into law school curricula. Prior to the adoption of the United Nations (U.N.) Charter in 1945, international law provided only limited rights protection, and the individual's claim had to be sponsored by the state of which the individual was a national. Since the U.N. Charter, international law has recognized a broad spectrum of rights guaranteed to the individual. In addition, and importantly, international law clothes the individual with standing to assert and enforce these rights. Nonetheless, the novelty of human rights law means that there is not a highly developed body of case law or other practice to give content to human rights in specific situations. One situation that has contributed significantly to the development of international standards has been Israel's occupation, since 1967, of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, both sectors of the former Palestine. Because of the special international aspect of this situation, attention has been focused by the United Nations and other international organizations on Israel's treatment of the Palestinian populations of these territories. These organizations have addressed Israel's conduct on the basis of internationally applicable norms regarding the treatment of the individual. The issue of Israel's conduct in the Palestinian territories gained the world's attention even more closely in 1987, when the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip and West Bank began concerted action, called intifada (uprising), to force Israel to withdraw. Israel responded with a series of decisive measures, in an effort to put down the uprising. When the government of Israel changed in 1992, the range of measures taken did not. In late 1992, Israel expelled 415 Palestinians, on suspicion of membership in an organization that had killed an Israeli soldier. This led to a new round of international condemnation based on international norms protecting the rights of the individual. One of the most controversial of Israel's techniques for stemming resistance in the Gaza Strip and West Bank has been the demolition of houses as a punitive measure. Israel has used this penalty for a variety of security-related offenses. International organizations have criticized this penalty on the basis of international standards that govern the imposition of penal sanctions. Victims have used these standards in framing their complaints, both in international fora and in Israeli courts. This article examines Israel's punitive demolition of dwellings as an example of human rights law enforcement. It uses this example to illustrate how lawyers in the United States and elsewhere can use international standards to the benefit of clients.

Download

Share

COinS